Beneath its ambitious title, this is a modest book. Greg Mitchell does not undertake a grand investigation into the multiple factors that came together to bring about the historic Obama triumph. That synthesis awaits deeper inquiry and analysis.

The veteran editor, author, liberal blogger, and self-described political junkie Mitchell provides a readable, entertaining, and perceptive month-by-month diary of – and reflection on – the 2008 presidential campaign as seen through both the “mainstream” (corporate) media and the ever-more politically significant eyes of “new,” that is Web-based media, where progressives (Mitchell argues) hold the day.

The diary is constructed from Mitchell’s blog-posts on media election coverage and commentary during the campaign. The subject focus is fairly wide-ranging. It includes the Republican as well as the Democratic primaries. Mitchell’s entries often include insightful comments on issues related to such topics as mainstream media bias, race, foreign policy, the ideological orientation of Netroots activists (not intellectual “Chomsky lovers” on the whole, he says), and more.

In one of his entries for November 2007, Mitchell regales us with the hilarious, short-lived Steven Colbert campaign, including Colbert’s visit on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press.

An April 2008 entry reflects on Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”- CT) preposterous suggestion (on the Brian and Judge radio show, following an earlier bizarre Marx-Obama connection suggested by neoconservative New York Times columnist William Kristol) that Obama might be “a Marxist” (yes, a “Marxist,” you read that correctly).

An August 2008 entry tells the story of how MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ripped into veteran AP reporter Charles Babington for claiming that Obama’s Democratic Convention speech lacked specifics and novelty.

An October 2008 entry tells about the popular syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker had the nerve to question Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be vice president. A November 2008 entry reports that Dick Cheney’s hometown newspaper (in Caspar, Wyoming) endorsed Obama.

Another October 2008 entry riffs in interesting ways on how Bruce Springsteen’s endorsement was helping Obama get some media counterweight to Sarah Palin’s slams on Obama’s alleged friendship with the terrible terrorist (turned education professor and charter school advocate) Bill Ayers,

If you want a concise, well-written, and often amusing summary of numerous key campaign media episodes – e.g. Hillary Clinton’s bizarre insinuation that Obama was vulnerable to assassination ala RFK – then this is your book.

Beyond all this chronologically arranged detail, Mitchell also advances an underlying argument about new (Web-based) media’s critical role in the conduct and outcome of the campaign and election. The argument does not appear in fully explicit terms until the concluding pages (in the chapter titled “November 2008”) and it comes largely in other commentators’ words. It consists of the following core propositions on Why Obama Won:

* The U.S. populace has moved far enough beyond racial prejudice to elect a black president (though Mitchell does interject some sober assessments of Obama’s difficulty winning over white voters, who supported McCain “by a landslide, by about 56% to 42 %”).

* Netroots organizers and leaders like Daily Kos’s Markos Moulitsas successfully pushed hard and raised funds for Democratic candidates beneath and “beyond ideology and special interest groups.” They did to with a welcome Howard Deanian commitment to contesting all fifty states, not just the traditional regional strongholds of the Democratic Party.

* Obama benefited from changing racial and age demographics (the rising non-white percentage and the passing away of older Republican voters). He rocked the youth vote, itself highly sensitive to new media.

* Progressive dominance of the Internet/New Media effectively encountered the Republicans’ Swift-boating attack machine this time

* Sarah Palin was usefully exposed as grossly unqualified in both old and new media.

Yes, Mitchell’s arguments overlap a fair deal. If you had to (unfairly) boil his answer the question his title asks to two words, those words would be “The Internet.”

I (today’s Firedoglake Book Salon host, Paul Street) think Mitchell’s thesis/theses could have been made a bit more explicitly and forcefully at the front of the book. Some and perhaps many left-progressive readers will (I do) raise some unpleasant (or at least difficult) questions Greg does not address about the role that big corporate and Wall Street money (and vetting) and old corporate media approval played in bringing about the ascendancy of (what many of us consider to be) a fairly centrist, business- and military-friendly presidential candidate – a judgment on Obama that ranges as close to the mainstream as The New York Times’ Paul Krugman (an Obama critic and John Edwards supporter during the primary season) and The New Yorker’s Larissa MacFarquhar (who described Obama as “deeply conservative” in May of 2007) to the more “far left” venues (e.g. ZNet, Z Magazine, Black Agenda Report, CounterPunch, and Dissident Voice to name a few) where I (an actual 21st century Marxist and Chomsky-admirer) reside. There are related questions, perhaps, to ask, about the roles of the Iraq War and above all (what displaced “Iraq” as the main campaign issue well before the Iowa Caucus), “the economy” (epic economic crisis by mid September of 2008) played in determining Obama’s election and about…no, I’ll stop because I don’t want to pre-empt others’ questions, comments, or criticisms and I want to save my own questions and criticisms for the discussion.

I want to thank Greg Mitchell for writing a provocative book that (a) recaptures a lot of important media and political history, (b) advances important reflections on the role of new media (and to a lesser extent the role of race and demography) in the remaking of American politics, and (c) entertains. I don’t think Mitchell’s volume advances anything like a full answer to the question posed by his title, but I do think future investigators are going to have to pay attention to both the content and the argument presented in Why Obama Won. I should also add that I very much appreciate Greg’s astute reflections and warnings (pp. 99-101) regarding Obama’s dangerous commitment to deepening the so-called “good war” – the U.S. quagmire – in Afghanistan.

I also have a new piece at Editor & Publisher on the “myth” of the media destroying Palin (as I do in the book) — with poll results from just days after she was picked showing that she was actually turning off women…

I’ll throw one out. Greg, is the short answer to the question asked in the title perhaps “the economy stupid?” Given the atrocious state of the economy in 2008 (they say the recesion really started in December of 2007 and I recall in Iowa how it replaced Iraq as the top issue by August of 2007)? Sometimes I wonder if the question might how could he NOT have won or perhaps even why didn’t he win by more? (with race perhaps being the answer to the last question). Or are you saying the economy wouldn’t have been enough to do it for him except for the new media stuff? Not my best question but I hope you get the idea….

Greg, I have not had a chance to read your book but did read a number of your E&P columns over the past couple of years. A question though from Paul’s intro above:

The U.S. populace has moved far enough beyond racial prejudice to elect a black president (though Mitchell does interject some sober assessments of Obama’s difficulty winning over white voters, who supported McCain “by a landslide, by about 56% to 42 %”).

How does the percentage of white voters that Obama received compare to the white voters that Al Gore and JOhn Kerry received? I seem to recall that even though Obama lost the white voter “in a landslide” he was in fact doing better or at least comparably with the same voters as Gore and Kerry.

And then also I want to ask if I’ve done a reasonable job (above) in stating your argument. I think its my academic background that has ingrained this make a big elaborate argument in the introduction. But anyway, if your explanation of Obama’s victory in 2008 is largely about Web-based media, what made it work for Obama this time versus say Dean in 2004? Just that they had the resources (financial and/or technical) to really do it right, that new media and the blogosphere/Netroots had just evolved to a new stage…. this was the moment of critical mass where it really took off….

It’s amazing that no matter how much the media keeps predicting that Obama’s appeal is wearing off, the polls keep showing he has 70% backing. It’s almost as if all those people who were “scared” of him during the campaign have now taken a fresh look and thought, “hhm, doesn’t seem like terrorist…wife and kids seem nice….”

Your summary isn’t bad, but I do attribute MOST of the reason for his win to the web tools, just a good part of it. The Deaniacs paved the way but Obama team was just so far ahead in the social networking, viral video, fundraising, and more.

Greg, as you note in the intro to your book, you sit in both the world of the traditional media (E&P) and the new media of blogs and the online world. How would you say the media (traditional and new) changed/grew/evolved/etc. over the course of the campaign?

Good question. I just noted the Stewart/Colbert effect. Let me mention one key factor. In the past, after the debates, the gasbags on TV weighed in and set the narrative — who won, did better than expected, etc. It took a day or more for polls to arrive. This year, the polls — and focus groups — came within minutes. And with all 4 debates, the gasbags called them pretty much a draw, but the polls/focus groups show landslides for the Democrat. It was actually embarrassing for the pundits…

Greg, since I’m in Iowa, you’re starting date seemed a little late to me. we are in full presidential mode with all the candidate everywhere at town halls and giving addresses and so on in every town by….geez, May or June. Now, I did a fair amount of canvassing for Edwards (even though I’m personally left of Kucinich…it’s a long story) and one thing we thought we were seeing in mainstream (old) media was a real bias against Edwards (who was being quite stridently populist in ways that corporate media and funders don’t like). Edwards was running very strong in polls and at town halls here and you’d go on national media and it was all Obama-Hillary…a two-person race, which we thought was very interesting. Obama really got the corporate media nod as the anti-Hillary was my sense. How was Edwards treated in new media, in the progressive blogosphere? And do you think there was some media bias more towards the ‘center’ candidates BO and HC and against JRE, not to mention my guy Dennis….

My question’s a little different. It seemed to me (and seems still) that Obama is playing a different game than his opponents. Less tactical, more strategic. McCain’s hope of winning was based on Obama fulfilling the “celebrity”, lightweight image they constructed for him over the summer, and Obama, of course, chose not to do that.

Furthermore, while Obama did respond when attacked, his operation seemed calmer and less instantly aggressive than, say, the ‘92 Clinton operation. It’s as if they knew which attacks would simply miss and didn’t need to be addressed.

I think he started with a huge advantage in the fall because of the economy, but that his demeanor and methodology was also a unique and refreshing change from so many other campaigns in the past.

This means about 1 in 4 Americans who voted for John McCain now support our President. Do you think these are people won over by the reality of Obama, his warmth and charm, and his family? Or are these people who have been conditioned to support the President in wartime?

I haven’t seen many defenses of Obama on liberal blogs that call on Americans to support our President in wartime, like the conservative media enterprise did so effectively for so long with Bush. Do you think that some of Obama’s bounce in the polls since Election Day is because some people just feel you ought to support our President?

Thanks again for chatting today — I am looking forward to buying and reading your book, and I like reading your internet writing wherever I find it.

I remember the polls at DailyKos of their people coming up to the Iowa caucus, for weeks, and they all showed Obama way down the list. Wesley Clark would be up there, Edwards might have been first most of the time, Chris Dodd took a strong stand on something and surged…and so on. So there was NOT a progressive tendency to Obama early on, or even well on…. but Edwards still represented only a slice of the party and needed big breakthrough…and was well behind in web fundraising, use of video (ouch), etc…

Yes, much, much more attention to blogs last year…and, of course, all of the top newspapers and networks were blogging like crazy themselves…so could hardly make fun of the outside bloggers….it’s been night and day over the past 5 years…

As I noted above, I think some of this was just the “terrorist” talk ending with the campaign, and people who believed that noting that somehow that guy won by millions of votes so might be so scary…One hopes that these people now have even more doubts about the Republicans for saying such terrible things about this nice young man and his nice wife…

I don’t see it mentioned in the introduction, so I’ll ask: does your book discuss any of the incredible media-based misogyny we saw in the campaign as part of what took down Hillary Clinton’s high-flying primary campaign?

BTW, in a NYT interview tomorrow, Bill Ayers reveals that he actually sent Palin a note after the election asking if she wanted to launch a talk show with him called “Pallin’ around with Bill and Sarah.”

Greg — so great to see you here at FDL. The book is an excellent dissection of the campaign and the mood of the country.

I wonder what you think about the most recent back and forth on the stimulus bill and especially the
getting to no” nature of Boehner and the GOP? I may be misreading the mood of the country, but I get the feeling that “screw you, we’re not helping you” is not exactly a winning message…

I’ve been intrigued by the way some traditional media folks are still appalled at being held accountable by bloggers for their coverage, while others are learning to adapt to a world that includes the new media.

Reader’s comments at traditional media websites, for instance, provide some immediate feedback on reporter’s stories — but how many reporters or editors take the time to even read through the comments and learn something from them?

The media, along with the GOP, misread the public and the true and growing desperation. They actually thought that people being promised jobs and relief and more of a safety net would get riled up by the bogus “30 million dollar mouse” ruse. The media bought much of it. Just read “Politico” online to get the real mood of the out-of-it Beltway Boys…

It varies greatly. Some real take it to heart, others no. Dana Milbank just this week said, I believe, that he NEVER reads the comments anymore. I remember a year or two ago, he made a brief venture on to DailyKos for what he thought would be a series of amiable exchanges. Uh…not. And never returned….

AP’s Jennifer Loven and WaPo’s Michael Fletcher made very clear the out-of-touch DeeCee-based media attitude when they blew opportunities to ask the President reality-based questions at the press conference. Given Sam Stein’s star turn, and despite the President’s waffling answer, do you think netroots reporters will be called on more? TradMed didn’t exactly cover itself in glory that evening.

Yeah, Edwards had some video issues. Still, in the town halls (I went to a number) a simply astonishing candidate…best stump speech I’ve ever heard. And did more to bring the languages of labor and class into a mainstream candidacy than anything I’ve ever seen. When I looked at DK a lot of Edwards sentiment.

With Edwards we were able only to go and get that more laborite-progressive slice from 04 and we turned them out. Obama had resources and skills to go get new voters. And that costs big bucks. Micro-targeting and the rest is quite expensive. The Internet strategies were not all cheap either.

Which brings me to the role of money. Gregg you make a big point on Obama having 3 million contributors and being a grassroots fundraising outfit. Still, a recent Campaign Finance Institute study notes that Obama got only a quarter of his total campaign finance haul from small donors (from people giving less than $200 total). I believe BO got more than $900,000 from Goldman Sachs alone, part of more than $37.5 million from “FIRE” (the finance, real estate, and insurance industries. And we know that Obama got record total funding and record corporate funding.

What role did his funding advantage play? And what is/was the attraction of Obama to big money sponsors..was it what Hugh suggests — a chance to give the dominant system a rebel’s clothing public relations makeover….to restore legitimacy for the establishment and call it change? Or was big money just jumping on board with a fait accompli, a phenomenon not of their own making…. and trying to influence it as much as they could? Disclosure: Hugh’s point is to some extent the thesis of my more academic book on Obama.

The funding was key going back to the post-Iowa primary campaign. People may forget that he had to battle Hillary — evenly — until early June. In fact, I think the question about the corporate finance flocking to him might best be studied by looking at how they broke UNTIL Obama surged ahead? Did they actually favor Clinton? Only turn to Obama later, perhaps reluctantly?

As for his small funders–it might be argued that this meant more to them to him! They felt a part of it, empowered, drove them to work harder and vote. So the 3 million cannot be dismissed, even if Goldman donated so much…

On that note, I wondered if you read Dorothy Rabinowitz’ epistle today in the WSJ? I haven’t laughed that much in ages.

And I do wonder if some of these elite pundits ever get out of their usual social set and walk among regular folks who are frantically clipping coupons, eating more beans and rice, turning down their thermostats, and doing all the cost-cutting they possibly can while praying they still have a job next week? Because that’s the world I live in pretty much every day in WV, and it’s getting ugly out here. Mercifully not for my little family at the moment, but I see it every day with other folks we know…every single day.

Yeah, it was a strange night — but did you notice that virtually every question, until Helen Thomas’, came from someone under-40? Truly the torch has been passed, for better or worse….I think he called on Sam Stein simply to make a statement. I suspect he will call on one non-trad journo every session…

I was amazing that so many in the MSM, and even on liberal blogs, did not know what Helen Thomas was really getting at — Israel having The Bomb…

I will check out Dotty Dorothy’s latest…but I have a piece on her in the book when, over a year ago, she predicted that Obama would soon fade away and people would ask, “Who was Barack Obama?” Of course, Morning Joe Scarborough had predicted that Hillary would simply “chew him up.”

… This year, the polls — and focus groups — came within minutes. And with all 4 debates, the gasbags called them pretty much a draw, but the polls/focus groups show landslides for the Democrat. It was actually embarrassing for the pundits…

Obama won mainly because of Jr. and the fact that his opponents came from the very bottom of the Repub barrel. No Repub with any measurable IQ was going to waste their time or money trying to run in the shadow of the most disasterous president of all times. With a half decent team a avacado could of beat them.

FrozenNorthObserver: In Iowa you could tell the top three Dems (BO, who I picked as next prez in December of 2006 [he looked unbeatable to me], HC and the un-electable [because too “populist” among other reasons] JRE)knew they were running for president. The GOP was obviously very much in need of reconfiguration and had been devasted buy the long national nightmare of Darth Cheny and Boy Dubya. I’ve had a few Republicans tell me they’d just assume Obama inherit (a) the economy/epic recession and (b) Iraq and Afghanistan while their party go re-boots. Still, it seemed like McCain might have had a final real shot (thanks in no small part to race) but for (a)the Wall Street meltdown and (b) the disastourous Palin pick Gregg writes about alot in this book.

One of the reasons Edwards’ message resonated was even early on regular Americans knew that the Bush economy was not helping them. If you look at Bush job creation numbers, he created only 5.6 million jobs up until the recession began in December 2007. That’s a per month rate of 67,500. 120,000 would have been needed just for the economy to tread water. Pundits sold it as a kind of new economics. They were able to do this because the bubbles of the paper economy made the aggregate look good. But when the housing bubble burst and then we had the financial meltdown the already abysmal state of the real economy became plain to everyone but Republicans and Blue Dogs.

The TheoCons and other significant sectors of the GOP were not at all happy with McCain *until* he named Palin his VP. Had he gone with a less fundy-pleasing VP choice, his base in the GOP would not have been nearly so enthusiastic.

I live in the greater KC MO area, and there’s no way McCain would have won Missouri without the hardcore Theocons who flocked to support Palin.

IMHO, Palin was McCain’s “hail Mary” pass, because he had very little chance to win otherwise.

Greg, I don’t recall many references in your book to the interesting commentary of Krugman, who is lately (around the stimulus and the question of bipartisanship) picking up with some of the liberal-left critiques of Obama he made during late 2007…he was quite relentless on BO from his (liberal, not radical) left. (I could have missed some entries where you discussed PK though) Do you think PK is too tough on Obama? Personally I’d rather have him and people like J. Gailbraith and S. Stiglitz forming economic policy right now than Summers, Geithner and the rest of that (one would think or at least hope) discredited corporate-Democrat crowd…. Obama needs to stop referring to just the ‘failed economic policies of the last 8 years’ and look back to the de-regulation of the late Clinton administration IMHO.

I disagree. She might have helped him win Missouri but look at what happened elsewhere. The media ate up the “enthusiasm” she provoked with the base but she turned off twice as many voters as she attracted. There is no evidence that she helped overall.

There is a little on Krugman in the book. In fact, I was in Austin for the Netroots Nation confab and quote him there saying that Obama would win and then get attacked by the media almost instantly. Which, ironically, ended up including him! But that’s fine with me.

It is still surprising that McCain came as close as he did considering;

8 years of Bush
A huge money advantage for Obama
A Republican ticket that was half geriatric and half Christian right bimbo
The housing bubble bursting
The financial meltdown
And not to be forgotten the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Which gets to the heart of it and how low information voters still tip a lot of elections.

Anyone who listened to any of the debate in the House or Senate on the stimulus knows what I mean. Virtually none of them, Democrats or Republicans, had even a glimmer of a whisper of an inkling of what they were talking about.

To expand on 1, HRC did capture nearly as many primary votes as Obama. Without Obama, hers would have been the historical presidential campaign setting all the historical benchmarks. McCain would not have been able to control himself and would have made some rather insultingly sexist remarks.. He most likely would NOT have chosen Palin as his VP mate though.

If that had happened, I think the same level of recognition of the pandering would have come into play. Just as most HRC voters were far more intelligent to accept Palin as another coming of HRC, so Obama voters would have recognized that choosing Steele was a pander move.

But your original premise was based on Obama not having run, not on Obama having run and lost in the primary to HRC. Therefore, based on your original premise of Obama not having run, picking Steele, although a pander move, would do what it shows today, an attempt to paint the Republicans as more inclusive than they in fact are.

Greg — I know its early but do you have a grade for Obama in power? I don’t sense much predisposition for progressive criticism of Obama in the book (that’s just an observation, not necessarily a criticism).

Also, how do you think liberals and progressives might best think about his “Organizing for America” initiative….A real chance for citizen input and activism between and across election extrvaganzas?…a method for containment of citizen action. for what the mainstream openly calls “expectation management” (I love that phrase, it speaks volumes.)?

I was intrigued by how his Web site became a vehicle for many of his supporters to express dissatisfaction with his terrible (my view anyway) wiretapping vote last summmer (or was it spring). Can his Web-based Organzing for America productively good citizen concerns to his left on things like Afghanistan (where he is pledged to escalate) and the Wall Street bailout? Will the new media that did so much to help elect him also be useful in checking him from the progressive side? God knows old media is doing everything it can to keep him in “realistic” and supposendly “non-ideological” (read: business friendly with no crazy ideas like a peace dividend and acting on the real counsel of Dr. MLK Jr. 1966-68) boundaries, consistent with a narrow-spectrum political culture that goes back a long way of course….

A question on the Palin front — I don’t think the media destroyed her, I think she did herself in. But as to whether she was a terrible choice, one of McCain’s big problems was that he didn’t excite the “pro-life” women who represent the heart of the GOP GOTV effort. I spoke with Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention the other day, who suggested Palin in the first place. He said that these pro-life women were shouting in the streets with joy over Palin. They really turned out for her despite everything.

So the question is — is the GOP in a bind? I mean, if not Palin, who would have been better? Lieberman may have played better in the press (and I still think he would’ve had a miraculous “conversion” speech at the RNC realizing the errors of his ways on choice), but would he have gotten the job done either?

i need to re-write a sentence there: Can his Web-based Organzing for America productively channel citizen concerns to his left on things like Afghanistan (where he is pledged to escalate) and the Wall Street bailout?

If Hugh’s ’suggestion’ that Obama is really just a ‘pretty face’, the misconstrued ‘hope’ of ‘change, and an ‘Establishment’ Trojan Horse, and assuming that he comes to be understood by the public as being such, then what do you think his chances of re-election?

And while we are speculating, might it be reasonable to ’suggest’, that if Obama does, for example, continue to support the ‘bailout’ of the banks, their stockholders and what James Galbraith terms the ‘incumbent management’, knowing full well that the public will take the ‘hit’, he will be the last of the ‘traditional’ American Establishment politicians.

He seems to be asking people to push him from the left, to provide the political space so any attempt to negotiate a “middle” doesn’t wind up distinctly on the right. How would you grade progressives on providing that counterbalance?

Seems to me that a discussion of an Obama victory has to start with the caucus strategy that allowed him to take the lead in the nomination before many figured out that it had happened. That shows some creativity and great strategic thinking. I don’t really think that McBush had a chance- particularly after the grim economic news sunk in. He,of course, shot himself in the vote by spending all of his money and energy mollifying the far right and his choice of Palin cemented the deal, but I don’t see how he could have won under the circumstances. Had McBush run to the center and turned totally against President GW Clusterfuck, we might have seen a race.

Yeah, too much to respond to, but I think the Obama org will find out it’s a different game than running a campaign…they already started slowly in not really getting in to the “stim” battle…

But that aside, I think the criticism of Obama from the Krugmans and the Glenn Greenwalds and all the rest is heartening. There will be plenty of pressure on him from the “left,” so much so that his backers will complain that it’s too much too soon….

As for not radical enough mass movements…for the real thing, I hope you check out my book on Upton Sinclair’s “EPIC” campaign in 1934…

Jane, I think almost anyone would have done better than Palin. All polls showed that she did NOTHING but solidify the base while turning off the swing voters. Didn’t matter how many evangelicals were waving their arms in the streets. My piece today at E&P shows this:

After analyzing Obama’s thought processes for some months, do you think that he has the stomach for prosecuting high ranking criminals from the previous administration, or is that to disruptive for his preferred style?

Yes, and their situation is going to get even worse, as we have the growing split between the governors and mayors (who have to live with the results of Republican anti-tax/anti-government ideology) and the Congresscritters, who fear their crazed base more than they fear the general public.

In the best case scenario, it becomes clear that GOP represents only 40% of the U.S. and while it may never fade more than that it will also not gain from that for years to come…Let them just keep watching Fox and listening to Rush in the echo chamber…of course, that could change…but the big change in recent years is now the Web more than balances Fox and talk radio….

Lots of talk about the goopers and how they are going to have to eat their way out of the wilderness by existing on sheep feces or whatever- but the next election will likely turn on issues that we know nothing of yet. That’s turned into a normal state of affairs. It probably won’t be the wars, or the economy- or even what ass holes the goopers are. Look for something REALLY different!

To Jane: Well, you’d have to distinguish between his objectives and world view (it’s not for nothing he got $33 million from the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate industries….they started vetting BO in late 2003 and early 2004, as Ken Silverstein showed in Harpers’ in November of 2006) and the goals and world view of a lefty in my case. Getting his stimulus package through was a major political accomplishment. He’s gotten a bloody nose on his fetish of bipartisanship and relatedly on the Commerce fiasco, but no great damage there long term. His numbers are still quite high – approval in the 70s. The progressive “honeymoaning” (A. Cockburn’s funny term)is pretty well contained. From BO’s political perspective of mildly progressive centrist governance and maintaining popular support, he’s doing quite well – an A. He’s masterfully cloaking authoritarian state-capitalist Wall Street Welfarism with populist-sounding rhetoric on executive compensation and bonuses. It’s all what David Rothkop called (in the New York Times in early November) “the violin model: hold power with the left hand and play the music with your right hand.” The expectation management is working and there’s not all that much propensity or capacity for rebellion on the part of a back-on-its-heels populace….a citizenry that seems pretty alien to the notion of the populace pressuring the political class. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard another working-/middle-class person say, “well, all we can do is hope.” I think to myself, “yikes, that’s not exactly how the New Deal happened or how the Civil Rights Movement’s people thought!” But this mentality is deeply ingrained over many decades of corporate-managed democracy in my opinion. But its early in the crisis, actually. The EIPC and the rest of that wonderful grassroots activity that fueled the Second New Deal came 4-5 years into the Great Depression and after unemployment went to 25 percent. We are fairly early into this epic recession and its potentially radicalizing impact….We shall see.

But of course its very early and his great test is going to be whether he can get a recovery; my sense he can’t get a big enough one with with the policy tools he’s using. But we are still waiting for more details on the next phase of the credit/bailout plan